Mud-club
Chat & Social => The Bar - General Chat => Topic started by: Jimbrown on September 23, 2004, 18:39:27
-
After the airing of a program on channel 4 on Wednesday night it sparked off a debate as to whether man has been to the moon or have we all been duped.
As I could not correct the question it should read.
HAS MAN REALLY LANDED ON THE MOON ?
-
I would think that if they had not been yet, they would have sold the Movie rights for the faking by now :D
Steve
-
Well we seen alot about the first moon walk etc but was it real? I'm not sure, there has always been a element of doult. Didn't see the program so can't comment. What were the views from the C4 program?
-
Well we seen alot about the first moon walk etc but was it real? I'm not sure, there has always been a element of doult. Didn't see the program so can't comment. What were the views from the C4 program?
I missed it too turtle the tv blew up but Tim (muddy) saw it
-
The radiation that surrounds the earth is about 10x that of nuclear plant in meltdown.The space suits that they had could withstand this,yet these suits were never made available to people fighting nuclear meltdowns.
Bet they wouldn't keep you warm in a Landy :lol:
-
I don't believe they ever did, otherwise why haven't they been back since :?
-
Most of the argument is based around the lighting of the photos.
It makes for interesting watching.
Ed
-
Some of the arguments are quite good, I think. Particularly the photos.
But surely if it had been faked, it would have been leaked long ago!
-
This particular conspiracy theory has been around a long time. Maybe no one's been listening or just plain who cares?
Wasn't Capricorn One a sort of mickey take of it. (1978)
Ed
-
I'm relativley convinced man got to the moon, but I'm open to being proved wrong on any of the below points!
if it had been faked, it would have been leaked long ago
Okay, but given any governments abilities to keep even minor misdemeanors quiet, I'm having trouble believing that something so spectacular could be kept quiet - I doubt they're that smart. I now await my arrest and the chance to proved wrong :wink:
The radiation that surrounds the earth is about 10x that of nuclear plant in meltdown.The space suits that they had could withstand this,yet these suits were never made available to people fighting nuclear meltdowns.
Ah, now there are many different types of radiation to protect from and what comes out of leaking reactors ain't necessairly what comes out the sky - cos we'd be, like, fried if it did. Chernobyl output'd huge amounts of both gamma rays and x rays which require several meters of civil engineering for protection (at least 12 in Chernobyls case :shock: ) - a few milimeters of man made fabric would not help (helloo Toastville). Space suits are also danged expensive. Using this line of logic, if the moon landings were faked then every space mission since must have been because folks have bobbed around outside space ships since, without becoming bite-sized astro-jerky. :wink:
otherwise why haven't they been back since
Maybe man didn't go back because there was no point in going back. The intercontinental whizzing contest was over and it was costing a fortune for very little practical gain. :roll:
Just my tuppence - anyone else got any thoughts?
cheers
8)
Eeyore
-
I'm relativley convinced man got to the moon, but I'm open to being proved wrong on any of the below points!
if it had been faked, it would have been leaked long ago
Okay, but given any governments abilities to keep even minor misdemeanors quiet, I'm having trouble believing that something so spectacular could be kept quiet - I doubt they're that smart. I now await my arrest and the chance to proved wrong :wink:
The radiation that surrounds the earth is about 10x that of nuclear plant in meltdown.The space suits that they had could withstand this,yet these suits were never made available to people fighting nuclear meltdowns.
Ah, now there are many different types of radiation to protect from and what comes out of leaking reactors ain't necessairly what comes out the sky - cos we'd be, like, fried if it did. Chernobyl output'd huge amounts of both gamma rays and x rays which require several meters of civil engineering for protection (at least 12 in Chernobyls case :shock: ) - a few milimeters of man made fabric would not help (helloo Toastville). Space suits are also danged expensive. Using this line of logic, if the moon landings were faked then every space mission since must have been because folks have bobbed around outside space ships since, without becoming bite-sized astro-jerky. :wink:
otherwise why haven't they been back since
Maybe man didn't go back because there was no point in going back. The intercontinental whizzing contest was over and it was costing a fortune for very little practical gain. :roll:
Just my tuppence - anyone else got any thoughts?
cheers
8)
Eeyore
-
Using this line of logic, if the moon landings were faked then every space mission since must have been because folks have bobbed around outside space ships since, without becoming bite-sized astro-jerky.
No they wouldn't because the radiation belt is a lot further away from Earth and closer to the moon than where they travel now. They only go far enough to put the odd satellite or two up now.
As for the program, I wasn't 100% convinced before and am even less so after seeing the evidence, most of it compelling.
Light powdery surface, no blast crater under the landing craft (LEM)? A blast strong enough to lower the LEM gently to the surface would have blasted all that dust away and left a bloody great hole. There was none just a flat powdery surface as if the LEM had been gently placed there. Either that or they took a few gardening tools with them to tidy it up a bit for the photo's :)
And that's just one of dozens of pieces of eveidence I found very convincing.
I have it taped on my Sky+ box, if I could suss out how to get it on to PC then CD/DVD I'd send anyone a copy if they wanted it.
-
I've seen several programs on this topic before, and i think its a load of trash.
what you gotta remember about the moon is that it only has 1/6th the gravity of earth. so that means the landing craft come have landed much more easily than on the earth.
And, another thing, no one has proven the existence of the Van Allen radiation belts. its just a theory. It was known about at the time of the moon shots, so they didnt try to measure it.
And another thing. in one of the prgrams i saw, they were actually trying to disprove the conspiracy theory. one of the arguments was about the quality of the photographs. how they wouldnt have been able to get decent shots from a chest mounted camera. the team making the program then took a load of photos from a similar setup, and got lots of good pictures. it took some practice, but then surely the astronauts would have practiced before going to the moon?
alot of the arguments they put forward to prove the landings were fake are, if seen on their own, a bit flaky. in fact they are very flaky. its just that there are soo many arguments, it starts to look possible.
/rant
thats just my tuppence worth too.
actually, i want more than tuppence for that lot. you cant even buy a penny chew for tuppence these days. what with inflation and all that.
-
I tend to have an open mind about such things. In the case of the Lunar landing, I am not convinced either way. There appear to be some quite compelling arguements for the conspiricy theory. Mainly based around the fact they wanted desparately to beat the Russians there and desparate people do desparate things.
However, I think you could come up with arguements against just about anything if you tried hard enough.
-
It was on TV. It must be true :D
-
Big consipiracy tho innit?
I mean - HOW MANY people worked at Nasa from 1950summat to now?
Hmmmmm
I'm not convinced they could fake anything to that degree!!!!
-
Er.....
How is "Has man really walked on the moon or is space travel just a big con" a yes/no question?
*confused in Northampton*
-
Er.....
How is "Has man really walked on the moon or is space travel just a big con" a yes/no question?
*confused in Northampton*
I wondered that myself!
-
I'm not averse to They didn't go there in 69 but did get there in later attempts (for want of a better word).
Too much was riding on beating the Russians for America to lose the race.
Ed
-
In answer Thrasher YES :D
DM :?
-
No No No No! Yes!
Ed
If you've not watched the Vicar of Dibley you'll not get it.
-
No no no Yes you :)
DM :)
-
Err Yes yes yes No i err yes err no err I KNOW WOT I MEAN i think :shock:
DM :)
-
His best line was
No no no no no no parking in the top field.
So is that no parking in the top field or no no parking in the top field.
:lol:
Ed
I suppose on topic it would be no no man went to the moon.
-
Yes yes no
DM :P
-
No no yes :?
DM :)
-
Err pass the duchy on left hand side ?? i give up!
But i think we have the base of the next govenment sust :shock:
DM :)
-
Er.....
How is "Has man really walked on the moon or is space travel just a big con" a yes/no question?
Sorry I did spot the mistake but could not delete it but the question is simple, do you believe man has been to the moon, yes/no, if you could put it right Neil :) would really appreciate it
-
But if no, then, maybe, what if it could possibly, but then again it should, but only when if, apart from those moments when, if, not withstanding those that should, could would, if, but yes when and if only in the circumstances that should, moreover, and I.....er...........I......er.......... :-k
.......what was he asking??? :-s
Eeyore
-
Check out some of the pictures for yourselves.
http://www.expeditionexchange.com/nasa/
Nice 4x4 site too :D
-
Don't know about the moon thing, although the whole light/shadow story was proved correct. :?
I do know Sir Richard Branson will have the first commercial flights into space by the end of 2006. :shock:
-
I take it they'll be doing return tickets :)
Ed
-
Check out some of the pictures for yourselves.
It must have taken 1000's of pounds of thrust to lower something that heavy, gently to the surface without rattling the drivers fillings and not a single crater in sight.
Anyone ever accidently sneezed into an ashtray without blasting ash all over their desk?
Fantastic night sky in the background, no light pollution from any city street lamps. Just the right conditions for looking at the stars... Pity there isn't a single star in any shot whatsoever though isn't it?
As for that flag flapping in the breeze, do the laws of physics not apply in 1/6th gravity and absolute zero atmosphere?
Landed on the moon in 1969? I don't think so... But that's just my opinion, and few million others :roll:
-
Hmm..........why are there no stars :?:
-
Hmm..........why are there no stars :?:
Because NASA forgot to paint them in on the backdrop thinking that us mere thicko civilians wouldn't notice.
-
Hmm..........why are there no stars :?:
Because NASA forgot to paint them in on the backdrop thinking that us mere thicko civilians wouldn't notice.
No No No No Yes :arrow: it was cloudy :wink:
-
Well silly....
They took the photos during the day.
They only come out at night.
:? 8) :roll:
Ed
-
can you see the stars in daylight? nope. so the guys on the moon wouldnt either, and the ambient level of light on moon is actually far higher than it is on earth, cos theres no atmosphere to absorb it.
i think the moon lander weighed about 17 tons, in earths gravity, so on the moon that would make it a bit less than 3 tons, which is less than something like a helicopter. do they leave craters when they land on sand?
-
Would have thought so, you should see the size creater when me and Paj hit the ground :shock:
Huge 8)
The sand gets in my brakes though :P
-
can you see the stars in daylight? nope. so the guys on the moon wouldnt either, and the ambient level of light on moon is actually far higher than it is on earth, cos theres no atmosphere to absorb it.
Or reflect it so one cancels out the other. The shear blackness and lack of any detail in the background of the photo's is I believe a bit suspect to say the least.
i think the moon lander weighed about 17 tons, in earths gravity, so on the moon that would make it a bit less than 3 tons, which is less than something like a helicopter. do they leave craters when they land on sand?
Given that a helicopter relies on lift rather than thrust I'd say it would make one hell of a crater if it tried to land on the moon from the same height.
A better analogy would be a Harrier jump jet and they would make a bloody great crater landing vertically on sand. The moon surface was said to be "firm and powdery". Even the level of thrust needed to land a 3 ton object from that height softly on the moon would blast away most if not all the powder from the immediate vicinity and leave the "firm" (possibly) bedrock exposed. It doesn't take a NASA scientist or a photographic laboratory wizz kid to work out all the inconsistencies that are clearly visible in the photo's. In fact you can discount NASA scientist completely as they all missed them completely.
Facinating subject though and given the urgency at the time, a few porkies, propaganda, from the USA government should'nt suprize anyone :)
-
Given that a helicopter relies on lift rather than thrust I'd say it would make one hell of a crater if it tried to land on the moon from the same height.
it still relies on something being thrust downwards at a vast rate of knots
Facinating subject though and given the urgency at the time, a few porkies, propaganda, from the USA government should'nt suprize anyone :)
given the american governments ability to cover things up, and keep them secret, this would have been proved to be true years ago.
cmon, they couldnt even plant some WMD's in iraq, and thats all thats needed to justify the iraq war.
then theres Watergate, and the abuse of the iraqi soldiers, and Bush winning the last election. they are useless at covering things up. unless of course they are letting those through to hide the fact that they are actually very good at hiding things, and theres alot that we dont know about. now theres a decent conspiracy theory. that one could run for years :)
-
it still relies on something being thrust downwards at a vast rate of knots
The downdraft of a chopper is spread over a larger area than a rocket engine and because of the lift factor would only be a fraction of the downward thrust needed to support the chopper given the abscence of lift.
Either way, I watched it again last night and now I'm even more convinced it didn't happen.
Until some independant body lands on the moon at the same site and verifies the existance of the LEM, flag and footprints I don't think we'll ever really know the truth.
they are useless at covering things up.
So, who was it that really shot Kennedy then :?:
-
For those that missed it, it's on again on Wednesday, Discovery channel number 551 at 10pm and again at 11pm Discovery+1 channel 552.
-
They would claim that the LEM was stolen by a weather balloon.....
With technology these days you'd think we could soon see the LEM from Hubble or something like that.
Ed
-
With technology these days you'd think we could soon see the LEM from Hubble or something like that.
Fully agree with you 100%. They know the coordinates, Hubble is powerful enough to see to the edge of the galaxy but they can't spot a bloody great space ship a few 1000 (Maybe a bit more) miles away.
And before anyone says they can't see it because it's on the dartk side, if it was they couldn't have photographed the Earth from the moon surface... Unless they took the photo's before they didn't land on the moon :)
-
I had that problem on my driving test. THe guy asked if I could see a number plate at 20 whatever yards and I said I can see the sun and that's 93 million miles away. What more do you want :)
Ed
-
So, who was it that really shot Kennedy then :?:
dont look at me, i was born 18 years after he died
-
I think the answer you're looking for lies within this picture...
-
:lol: :lol:
Took me a while...
LMAO
-
dont look at me, i was born 18 years after he died
The point I'm making is Kennedy was shot 6 years before the "Moon Landing" and it's still not public knowlege who shot him.
So can the Yanks keep a secret? I would say keeping the "Moon Landing" a secret would be a doddle compaired to the Kennedy shooting and they've done a pretty good job at that so far.
Closest men ever to come close to walking on the moon is Sting or Michael Jackson, and he's a real Space Cadet :)
-
kenedy was shot by lee harvey oswald.
okay, he might not have fired the fatal shot, but he did shoot him.
-
kenedy was shot by lee harvey oswald.
He was hiding in a big silver weather balloon made of balsa wood wasn't he :roll:
-
no, but he had CIA training....
-
Took me ages but now I know who really did it!
Brilliant. Solved after all these years.
Ed
-
wayo, i was born in 1986 so i cant *really* get the blame for this one!!!! but still you never know... :roll:
-
But isn't that you in the photo Ben..?
The one with the hat.. :lol:
-
well yeah but we all know what daz can do with photoshop....
-
hello missed it again last night .. doh!!please tell me somebody recorded it?
anyways hubble couldnt see the moon coz its to close its designed to look into deep space.
will i ever get to see this proggy :(
bouncy aka flappy happy chappy
-
only just twigged that Ben is in the photo!
very , very funny!!! :D :D :D
well done Daz
we could do with a few more of these kind of pics on this forum.
-
Yep excellent stuff.
I spent ages trying to work out what was happening even working who the guys in the car were and trying to work out what the guy in the top left hand corner was doing. Then Kev dropped me a hint about a hat.
Brilliant
Ed
-
hello missed it again last night .. doh!!please tell me somebody recorded it?
I watched it again and they did manage to explain away some of the anomolies... It's just that blast crater that's bugging me.
Anyway, I did tape it and now I have a new version of wintv I with built in recorder I may be able to get it on to PC then DVD.
I'll have a play... When I can drag myself away from SIMS 2 that is :)
PS: When I compose these posts on my Linux box I get uato spill cheking, no such luxury with XP. :(
-
bouncyman urges the mighty fine and very sexy m0awb to do a special capture for him :D pweeeeeeeeeeze
-
bouncyman urges the mighty fine and very sexy m0awb to do a special capture for him :D pweeeeeeeeeeze
Bouncy MAN calling me sexy? That's worrying :)
I've had a play and it seems I need a 10 terrabyte hard drive to capture and hour... Shall have to find a few compression codecs first.
-
Hey Tony
Weve met a couple of times and you ARE one sexy hunk :wink: :twisted:
But i think bouncyman is talking about the CSW :lol:
-
Hey Tony
Weve met a couple of times and you ARE one sexy hunk
Sorry Cliff, your not my type... Your Missus is but your not :shock:
-
Sorry Cliff, your not my type... Your Missus is but your not :shock:
Awwww Tony you know you want me :twisted:
-
I'm getting worried about spending a weekend away with you Cliff. :shock:
-
I suppose Cliff will have to go in the bottom field.
Ed
-
m0awb cant u capture to dvd in your prog? ie it will only capture to around 4.3 gig?
and i was told u was sexy by Dig-it that u was sexy.... :lol:
-
m0awb cant u capture to dvd in your prog? ie it will only capture to around 4.3 gig?
No, it'll only capture in avi format and then I'll have to use Adobe Premier or some other DVD authoring software I have somewhere to convert and burn it. By the time I suss it out, when I get time, you'll have a dozen more chances to see it on Sky.
I'll keep playing.
and i was told u was sexy by Dig-it that u was sexy.... :lol:
Well, as worrying as it is, he didn't lie :roll:
Now, if your name was BouncyWoman I'd invite you over to watch it and then you could show me your bouncy bouncy skills afterwards...
But it's not so, Cest La Vie.